Okay, I’ve read some of the books. For the life of me I still cannot understand what the guy was on about. So if any of you could maybe help me with that, I would enjoy it. Thanks.

Please, I do not believe these persons here at ILP will be able to express Nietzsche better than N. did in his own self-expressional writings. Rewording it would make it less similar to N.

Ok. Then kill the topic. Besides I can search for it and find some hits.

Sagesound once gave me an audio-manifesto about Neitzsche’s prime philosophical values, but now Sagesound is gone and I do not remember what the URL of the mp3s was.

I’ll scim it down, pal:

Dogmas and moral absolutes should be replaced by creativity and self-discipline.

The human is something more than the ape, but in the same way that the ape was only an intermediary bridge to man, man is simply an intermediary bridge to the overman, which has mastered self-overcoming and can progress simply because of his own self-sustained and creative passions, creating beyond himself instead of making others sick with an uncreative and parasitic existence.

The will to power! The superman! A load of other exclamations!

Friend, that’s non-descriptive…

It’s a compressed version of Thus Spake :wink:

It doesn’t really help. Explain it.

Nietzsche saw himself at a unique place in history, Christianity and metaphysics had been destroyed by Darwin and rational thought, and man was now left to his own devices. He saw that man was not properly dealing with this, and he set out a path for man to cope with these changes, which would take a fundamental revaluation of the leftover Christian value system.

Such concepts to be overthrown were “Good and evil”(replaced by good and bad), “absolutism”(perspectivism) , “schopenhaurian pessimism”(will to power), and “Kantian romanticism”(eternal return). It seems to me that Nietzsche’s greatest gift to us is his genealogical method of critique, and his destruction of previous schools of thought.

I have reasons to belive his entire philosophy is rooted in his drive to deal with pain. He seems to have been in a great deal of pain most of the time, and realized, in his first book, the Birth of Tragedy, that suffering is a basic motivator for human achievement. The Greeks, according to him, invented their Appolonian ideal in order to cope with, or to shield themselves from the immense suffering they were, as an extraordinarily sensitive type of human, so uniquely capable of.
Nietzsche sets out on his mental warpath explaining how suffering is an insigator of creative will, and how creative will is a solution to suffering.
Perhaps he is most notorious for his idea that inflicting of suffering on others is justified if it serves to bring the aggressor joy. He is known to care very little for comfort - only exuberant extacy in body and spirit suffices to justify life. Lucky for him, he definitely had a powerful enough spirit to elevate his experience to such joyous heights with regularity, and to imagine lives, cultures and experiences far greater than what had thusfar been known to man.
Basically, I think, he experienced and saw so much suffering that he did not figure the dull and stupid life he saw around him justified this, and set out to invent scenario’s for the radical redefinition of the human condition in order to allow for more qualitative experience of the world.
He did not care for the price that would have to be paid for this - as far as he was concerned, 99% of humanity could perish so that 1% could truly live a life worthy of being lived. And if that 1% would accidentally perish as well - so be it.

Opera Night: What about Nietzsche don’t you get?

We can’t explain to you an entire thinker’s oeurve without massive oversimplification. Dan is right, both in his summary – which is very good – and in his advice to return to the text itself.

Maybe you should clarify: what about Nietzsche don’t you get? :smiley:

his ideas on superiority. Human complex. I just don’t understand it. Like it says on the profile “village idiot”. That’s me.

Complex ideas of human superiority. Complex superiority of human ideas. Superior ideas of complex humans.

The great human being (in the non-moral sense of “great”), whether by the name of “Overman” or “genius” - that’s Nietzsche’s alpha and omega.

There’s no need to understand the contraptions of “complexity” and “superiority”, in the same way as there is no need to read every bit and line of script before you can either deal-with – or avoid – a computer-program.

“Complexity” is an illusion because anything of any size or development is made of infinite smaller parts and codependant upon infinite changes and cycles in the universe.

“Superiority” is an illusion if seen as an absolute value because it is highly situational. Ex: Take a fish out of the water. Are the gils and fins all suddenly inferior? Or were they superior? They were neither.

So, I would say there is no need to feed mental energy to illusions.

One thing I’d like to add, and only because it can be agreed upon by all, is that Nietz signs himself more than most in the historicity of philosopy’s dialogue.

Thank you to all of you. This has all been very helpful. Thanks

Do you mean in that context (to the concepts you were discussing), or in general?


I have found out that a effective way to understanding Nietzsche is to read many different commentaries on his work by various other nihilist authors while reading his original writing simultaneously.

( Just my humble opinion.)


Nietzsche was the grandfather of existentialism, including the Romantic existentialism of Hitler. He advocated brutality, inhumanity, genocide, and anticognition as prime accompaniments to his wild dreams about recrudescing the ancient world’s system of chattel slavery and Aryan-type supremacy.

The best book to look into for this is The Anti-Christ, since this is what Nietzsche called himself and this book’s critique of Christian civilisation cuts to the bone of the matter, Christianity being the defining factor of the age. In it, he describes Christ as an incredible and fascinating mystery to him, whose message (which Nietzsche fails to grasp) was utterly perverted by Judaic priestcraft typified by the Apostle Paul.

Essentially, Nietzsche is a frothing animal railing against the tyranny of classical humanism, of the existence of humanity itself, which he would prefer not to exist, and which his philosophy has handily contributed toward destroying by his influence on both the Nazis and Nazi-like figures such as the Bush-cabinet-influencing philosopher Leo Strauss. Instead, humanity should be replaced by a superanimal along the lines of what Hitler later idolised with, presumably, a large herd of livestock to feed upon. This is just the same old oligarchal story rewritten to be “shocking” and “progressive.”

Nietzsche is clever, but not worth exhaustive study. Go read Percy Bysshe Shelley’s “A Defense of Poetry (1821)” instead, for some real meat. Nietzsche is more like those chops of bloody meat the old Northern trappers used to impale on sharp knives for the wolves to lick–cutting their tongues in the process.